June 3, 2009

[Obama expresses] admiration for and no reason to doubt the fine character of either man.

But, ultimately, Obama explains on Sept. 22, 2005, a nominee's character alone is insufficient to earn his support because both men, he alleges without detailing the merits of specific cases, too often side with powerful interests over others, with large companies against individuals, with prosecutors over defense attorneys.

He says he's seeking a judge who wants to "even" the playing field and that in a private meeting Roberts agreed. But Obama states that Roberts' words are unconvincing and contradicted by his decisions. "Ultimately," Obama says, "we need [to] give more weight to his deeds than his reassuring words."

Give more weight to his deeds than his reassuring words? The funny thing is: if the American people had done that, Obama would not now be in the position to appoint Supreme Court Justices.

Think of Michelle Obama's goals in life and the Rev. Wright's sermon series the next time you hear that Barack Obama says he merely wants to level everone else on his playing field. Nancy Pelossi take heed. Israeli jewish citizens take heed. Something this way cometh intending to level you. After Americans are next smashed into dirt poor poverty and totally at the mercy of our new Rulers commanding a UN World Climate Crisis Police, then we will also be leveled on the playing field of Obama's Kenyans and Indonesians. But what a sensitive and great smile we get in exchange!

Think of Michelle Obama's goals in life and the Rev. Wright's sermon series the next time you hear that Barack Obama says he merely wants to level everone else on his playing field. Nancy Pelossi take heed. Israeli jewish citizens take heed. Something this way cometh intending to level you. After Americans are next smashed into dirt poor poverty and totally at the mercy of our new Rulers commanding a UN World Climate Crisis Police, then we will also be leveled on the playing field of Obama's Kenyans and Indonesians. But what a sensitive and great smile we get in exchange!

Oggaboogaooga! The big bad Barak monster is coming for you! Battin down the hatches! Stock up on food supplies! Hid the virgins, jews and your stash of AK's.

Althouse: "Give more weight to his deeds than his reassuring words? The funny thing is: if the American people had done that, Obama would not now be in the position to appoint Supreme Court justice."

I have a problem with this analogy. I think most prople don't consider experience when voting for a President. They look for qualities: charisma, intelligence, gravitas, etc. I've always found the experience argument grating during the primary's and general. What experience is there that is anything close to that of being President, other than previously being President.

Also, isn't what Obama is talking about here exactly what he is saying about Sotomayor as well? He is saying don't judge her on a speech she gave, judge her extensive record. If the big conservative worry is that Sotomayor is an activist judge, I think her record as a judge would indicate that there is reasonable evidence that shows that she is not an activist judge, especially in matters of race(the big conservative worry). Where as Roberts is playing the sypathetic for the little guy case in the hearings, but his record shows that he favors the opponent to the little guy.

Ya start to get the sickening feeling that Obama throws sops and bones here and there, and erects and destroys straw men left and right....and my how nice and gracious of him to see good in his opponents.

Judge Obama -- "Congratulations Defendant, you win!! Sorry plaintiff, you lose. Although, if I were to consider the merits, you clearly would prevail, I've already ruled for the plaintiff in six out of the last ten cases, and I need to even the playing field. Maybe if you were a different race or ethnicity I might give you a hearing, or even rule on the merits, but you're not, so get the hell out of my court."

Obama & Bush who are always preaching fine sentiments and are no more virtuous than hundreds of those whom they denounce and whom they cheat, are fair objects of mistrust and satire; but their hypocrisy, the homage, according to the old saying, which vice pays to virtue, has this of good in it, that its fruits are good: a man may preach good morals tho he may be himself but a lax practitioner; a Pharisee may put pieces of gold into the charity-plate out of mere hypocrisy and ostentation, but the bad man’s gold feeds the widow and the fatherless as well as the good man’s. The butcher and baker must needs look, not to motives, but to money, in return for their wares.

Oh, I'm paying attention, Rocketeer. Not obsessively. But I'm paying attention. And I'm waiting for the part where Obama declares his contempt for the other branches of government performing their proper role as a check and balance against the executive.

One who believes the executive has a monarchical prerogative to ignore the legislative and judicial branches.

Of course, authoritarians are pretty marginalized in most societies, no less the U.S. So for a good forty years they tried making common cause with conservatives - who can be defined by many things, including a possible skepticism of government intervention in private industry. Even a powerful and historically important industry that's finally reaped the consequences of dooming itself to failure.

But we saw where that exercise led, so now the two are on their own. They just haven't gotten the message. And the authoritarians are slower to catch on to that development than the conservatives.

"Battin down the hatches! Stock up on food supplies! Hid the virgins, jews and your stash of AK'"-I wish it was that easy.

On Obama's reasoning: What does the nature of the parties have to do with the judgment of the cases? Is he suggesting some kind of quota system where powerful parties are assigned a certain percentage of wins and weaker ones a percentage. Don't really need a court for that. It is in line with affirmative action so Soto will be fine.

Let's watch C-Span clips of Senator Obama fretting about the dysempathy of those terrible judges, Roberts and Alito.

Let's not.

Sorry, I've had my fill of watching The One™ about a year and a half ago.

I bought extra remotes and positioned them strategically so I can flick him off * snap * like that.

I have a new attitude that is calcifying; just because the man insists on providing ceaseless steady streams of video/audio of his narcissistic-ass self doesn't mean it must be played or watched. In fact, he can just piss off. He's not my president, and I'm not listening to him.

Dysempathy. What is that? Some kind of pop-pych neologism being foisted on us? Gim'me a break. You're either empathetic or you're not. Obama is not. If he were empathetic, and not merely narcissistic, then he'd have empathy for my un-forbearance for him, he'd STFU and behave as an executive and not like ≠∪⊂≤⋅ℵ∂ meglo, constantly, daily, drawing attention to himself. There is nothing "dys" about empathy or the absence of it. Here's a word-usage hint for you: never use a word in public that gets fewer than, say, 5,000 Google hits. Words with less than 500, like dysempathy, are words used people seeking to alienate themselves linguistically.

Let's ride our bikes instead. I pimped out mine with side-baskets to hold things and a new seat that won't work its way up my bum. I want to get a horn that you squeeze the rubber bulb and it goes HONK! And possibly color streamers for the handle bar caps. I'm going to attach playing cards at the spokes with clothespins to make a flappy motor sound when I pedal down the sidewalks.

"We've marginalized an authoritarian all the way into the White House."

There is a difference between someone who engages your disagreement with him and makes a cogent case for why you're wrong, and someone who simply won't engage your disagreement. The latter, you'll note, is the type of person usually understood to be authoritarian.

I'll let you in on something, Mariner. As someone who wasn't sympathetic at all to the political left from 2001 to 2007, I realize that there comes a point when someone is simply emoting based on belief, and endlessly repeating assertions in the hope that some undecided or independent person will agree with them. That is where you guys are at now. Of course, I don't assume that you will understand that - an assumption that is open to change with the first response you give that rises above a tu quoque and actually manages to identify points of argumentation that we, or anyone reasonable, can first agree on - before making a case for something much less unassailable.

Anyone who is extremely likeable is now according to some, ipso facto, a narcissist.

Wrong. Anyone who is extremely likable is universally liked. The premise here is wrong. The man is hardly likable far less universally likable. Narcissism had to do with enjoying the sound of one's own voice, enjoying one's own look to the point of presenting oneself to the public at large on overly regular basis to the point of being obnoxious. That is my problem with the man. Can a news day go by without an Obama clip in it? Not for the last two and a half year! That's narcissism. Must I spell it out? Flying across the country in an oversized jet with a small squadron of following jets to deliver a speech of resource conservation is narcissism when that same speech can easily be delivered electronically. Basking in adoration is narcissism, and not just merely being likable. But you already know all this, you're just being obtuse.

"Here's a word-usage hint for you: never use a word in public that gets fewer than, say, 5,000 Google hits. Words with less than 500, like dysempathy, are words used people seeking to alienate themselves linguistically."

Not always. Sometimes they are strategic. I will surely be #1 if anyone ever Googles it.

"I don't believe that for a second, Montana...that would distract you from concentrating on breathing."

Nice ad hominem attacks. But they don't distract anyone with a brain from the real point, which is that Obama's opposition is dying off quicker than you guys can revive your own tattered, charisma-starved egos.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/#31091620

And here's a hint for someone trying to insult another's intelligence: Covering up your comments with cheap shots, devoid of any actual response or argument, doesn't make you any less stupid.

Chip attempts an actual point, but flubs it by forgetting that Obama's not responsible for the fact that the media has decided to focus on him. Which is a reflection of what the American people want to hear about. And why would they want to do that? I mean, it's not as if he's taken office in the midst of the most challenging domestic and foreign policy issues we've seen confronting a new president in a generation, is it? Oh, wait...

As for flying out somewhere to make a speech on conservation, you might want to judge an administration by how well it reaches its goals. If at the end of four years no progress is made on carbon emissions then I could understand why your panties would be in a bunch. But for most people the choice isn't between flying regularly and forgoing air travel, but with whether higher mileage vehicles, public transportation and other measures have been adequately incentivized. In the meantime, getting awareness up with a well-staged speech is a political goal. To harp on this is like watching the left harp on Bush's landing on an aircraft carrier as a waste of military resources. Equally silly and devoid of substance.

Imagine if people like Obama and "montana urban legend" spent their time actually doing something rather than running their mouths (or their typing finger in the case of der montanaische moderne-legende). A scary thought indeed.

"And I'm waiting for the part where Obama declares his contempt for the other branches of government performing their proper role as a check and balance against the executive."

But it's hard to square that with what the administration's actually done. DOJ lawyers haven't asked the courts for more time, or to withhold key pieces of information. Rather, they've argued that these cases--Jewel v NSA, Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation v Obama, and Mohammed v Jeppesen Dataplan--be tossed out entirely. And they've done that by invoking the state secrets privilege. In fact, in Jewel, the administration went so far as to claim "sovereign immunity" for the government from just about any lawsuit involving wiretapping. That position is even more radical than Bush's was.

"But it's hard to square that with what the administration's actually done. DOJ lawyers haven't asked the courts for more time, or to withhold key pieces of information. Rather, they've argued that these cases--Jewel v NSA, Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation v Obama, and Mohammed v Jeppesen Dataplan--be tossed out entirely. And they've done that by invoking the state secrets privilege. In fact, in Jewel, the administration went so far as to claim "sovereign immunity" for the government from just about any lawsuit involving wiretapping. That position is even more radical than Bush's was."

Really scinfinity!? And I guess that's why the opposition has made such a pressing case against the administration: Their genuine concern for civil liberties. Or, they would, if only the dark, totalitarian specter of socialism weren't presenting a more compelling agenda for them to advance.

If you wanted to be genuine, you could at least cite a link to back up your assertions. That would be nice.

If at the end of four years no progress is made on carbon emissions then I could understand why your panties would be in a bunchMine would be totally stretched (at least in front), although that might make it harder for sensible people to win in the next election. Crap and trade will be nothing but crap.